DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the battery module" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, defines “a plurality of battery modules”. As such, “the battery module” of claim 4, line 3 will be interpreted as “at least one battery module of the plurality of battery modules”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakazawa et al. (JP 2019-075191, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Nakazawa et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a battery rack (ref 11) comprising: a plurality of battery modules (refs 2); a rack case ([0013], all structure listed) to accommodate the plurality of battery modules (refs 2); an injection pipe (ref 50) comprising: a main body portion (ref 62) including an inlet (from ref 68 through refs 66, 67) through which an extinguishing agent ([0041]) is injected (Fig 5) and the main body portion (ref 62) extending along an arrangement (Figs 5, 6) of the plurality of battery modules (refs 2); and a distribution unit (at refs 3b, 58) extending toward (Figs 5, 6) each of the plurality of battery modules (refs 2) from the main body portion (ref 62) and including an outlet (at ref 3b, Fig 5) inserted into (Fig 5) each of the plurality of battery modules (refs 2); and a flexible pipe (ref 64, [0041], [0043, Fig 6) to be bendable (Fig 6) and comprising: a first coupler (at refs 66, 67, Fig 6) located at one end (Fig 6) of the flexible pipe (ref 64) to be connectable to a supply pipe (at ref 67, Fig 6) for supplying the extinguishing agent ([0041]); and a second coupler (at ref 62 connection, Fig 6, [0041]) located at the other end (Figs 5, 6) of the flexible pipe (ref 64) to be connectable to the inlet (Figs 5, 6, junction to ref 50) of the injection pipe (ref 50).
Regarding claim 3, Nakazawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the distribution unit (at refs 3b, 58) of the injection pipe (ref 50) protrudes and extends toward (Figs 5, 6) each of the plurality of battery modules (refs 2, in ref 11, Fig 6) in a shape branched (Fig 6) from the main body portion (ref 62), and an extended end portion (Figs 5, 6) of the distribution unit (at refs 3b, 58, Fig 6) is inserted into (Fig 5) each of the plurality of battery modules (refs 2, [0026]) by penetrating the same ([0026], via back panel ref 40, Figs 5, 6).
Regarding claim 4, Nakazawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the end portion (Fig 6) of the distribution unit (at ref 58) includes a passive valve (ref 63b, [0046]) to be opened when an internal temperature ([0046]) of the battery module (refs 2) rises above a predetermined temperature ([0046]), which is inserted into (Figs 5, 6) each of the battery modules (refs 2) by penetrating the same (Figs 5, 6).
Regarding claim 9, Nakazawa et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a power storage device (ref 10) comprising one or more of the battery rack (ref 11) as set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Nakazawa et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a power generation system ([0006], ref 1) comprising one or more of the battery rack (ref 11) as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa et al. (JP 2019-075191, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goitsuka et al. (US 2018/0241092).
Regarding claim 2, Nakazawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a connector provided at an outlet of the supply pipe or the inlet of the injection pipe, having a nozzle shape, and comprising a fixing groove formed by retreating a portion of the nozzle shape in an inward direction, wherein the first coupler or the second coupler includes an accommodating space into which a portion of the connector is inserted, and the first coupler or the second coupler comprises a fixing protrusion to be fixed to the fixing groove of the connector in the accommodating space when the connector is inserted into the accommodating space.
Goitsuka et al. discloses in Figs 1-22, a battery pack (Abstract) including a fire extinguishing structure including an extinguishing agent supply pipe having a nozzle (ref 242a) connected to a feed port (ref 238) having a shape for receiving (Fig 21, [0228]) the nozzle (ref 242a). This configuration enhances the connection and supply of fire extinguishing agent to the battery pack, enhancing overall safety (Abstract, [0228], [0013], Abstract).
Nakazawa et al. and Goitsuka et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the nozzle – coupling structure disclosed by Goitsuka et al. into the piping structure of Nakazawa et al. to
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa et al. (JP 2019-075191, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olivo et al. (2020/0139178).
Regarding claim 5, Nakazawa et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a lower end of the injection pipe includes a connector is provided at a lower end of the injection pipe, and the battery rack further comprises: a drain pipe comprising a third coupler located at one end portion of the drain pipe and configured to be connected to the connector provided at the lower end of the injection pipe; and a discharge valve located at the other end portion of the drain pipe and configured to control whether the extinguishing agent is discharged.
Olivio et al. discloses in Figs 1-19, a battery rack (ref 940) comprising a plurality of battery modules (ref 950). The battery rack (ref 940) includes basin drain (ref 990) for allowing and enhancing collection and discharge of fire extinguishing agent ([0053]), working in conjunction with valves ([0048]-[0049]), thereby enhancing overall performance and safety of the battery rack structure ([0053], Fig 9)
Nakazawa et al. and X are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the drain and valve structures disclosed by Olivia et al. into the structure of Nakazawa et al. to enhance overall performance and safety of the battery rack structure
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Instant dependent claim 6 discloses the rack case is among a plurality of rack cases of the battery rack, the plurality of rack cases being stacked in upward and downward directions, the injection pipe is provided on each of plurality of rack cases, and the battery rack further comprises an intermediate pipe to connect between an injection pipe provided on a rack case located on a relatively upper portion and an injection pipe provided on a rack case located on a relatively lower portion, the rack cases being from among the plurality of rack cases, and to have a bendable form.
Nakazawa et al. is considered to be the prior art reference of record closest to the aforementioned structural limitations of instant dependent claim 6. However, it does not disclose or render obvious alone or in combination with any other prior art reference all of the aforementioned structural instant claim limitations. Namely, the structure of the injection pipe and intermediate pipe connection spatially within the structure of the battery rack of the instant claims is not disclosed or rendered obvious. Further, claims 7 and 8 are objected to since they depend from claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725